Submissions about moderators (where the submission title is about mods or their duties) will be moved into r/MDAC to not spam normal users, however comments/criticism about management are fine. Feel free to call us Stalin. But if a thread becomes 'mostly subreddit drama' it may be moved to r/MDAC where you can continue your debate.

People don't have an equal say. One group, called "the majority" or "voters" decides for another group called "the minority." I can't imagine a more unequal system except maybe monarchy.

No lol. Everyone has an equal vote. Don't get pissy just because more people may want something one way that is equally there's more than the way you may want it. That's just a fact of opposing interests.

My question was: What's the practical difference to someone inside the system between what you're describing and a democratic state? How are the two systems really any different?

The AnCap hatred of democracy tickles me. It's so misguided. Instead of democracy, you advocate hierarchy in decision making. For instance, instead of everyone having collective decision making power over an apartment TV, you'd rather have the "owner" of the TV make all the decisions regarding that TV. Instead of letting everyone play an equal part in where the TV goes, you'd rather have one person absolutely control it. This is hierarchical and authoritarian.

In fact, a rejection of democracy in these very situations is the opposite of liberty.

If positive liberty can said to be a form of liberty at all, which I argue that it cannot possibly be because it requires an oppressive state.

That made me laugh. I don't know why you flipped the switch to positive liberty, either. Please reread our discussions, because I don't think you quite understand my view point. You're viewing democracy as this omnipresent entity akin to the state that has power over a random area of land, and thus everyone must obey it even if they don't come in to contact with what it's being applied to. That's wrong. Anarchist democracy is about having equal say in items that are owned by multiple people simultaneously, and not just by one person/group.

In fact, you participate in ludic democracy every single day of your life. I know you do. We all do. Every time you're in a group setting, working with people, you participate in a "democracy" as long as one person does not boss the others around, and all decisions are made with equal bargaining power. The rejection of democracy in the group setting is essentially hierarchy: or one person making decisions over everyone else.

I fail to see how anarchist democracy wouldn't just devolve into a state democracy eventually due to its inability to eschew the use of force as a means to an end.

No lol. Everyone has an equal vote. Don't get pissy just because more people may want something one way that is equally there's more than the way you may want it. That's just a fact of opposing interests.

You don't see the obvious failure of your logic here? If it's "just a fact of opposing interests" then shouldn't the winning side be able to kill the losing side just because it's a majority vote? Democracy shows how unrealistic and unsustainable it is when really pushed to its limits. There's a reason not just an-caps and libertarians call democracy "the tyranny of the majority" and it's because it makes all rights relative to the will of the majority. Regardless of whether there's a state or not, this is a systemic flaw of democracy itself that not even removing the state can overcome.

Instead of democracy, you advocate hierarchy in decision making.

What's wrong with that? Do you think someone else should be making your decisions for you instead? Well, if you don't then you believe in hierarchy in decision making too. You are at the top of a hierarchy of people who make decisions about you, followed by government, maybe your wife if you have one, family, etc.

For instance, instead of everyone having collective decision making power over an apartment TV, you'd rather have the "owner" of the TV make all the decisions regarding that TV.

When you purchase something with currency that is a representation of your expended labor, then that thing belongs to you. How would you feel if you worked hard all day and then came home to sit down in front of that TV and your roommates come home and change the channel via vote not 30 seconds after you sat on the couch. Are you going to say "Oh well, they voted me off MY TV that I worked hard as fuck to purchase. I guess I better just accept that." or are you going to say "WTF! This is my TV and if you have a problem watching what I'm watching then buy your own fucking TV."

Would you say that that's equal given that the TV is a representation of solely your labor and purchased entirely as a result of compensation resulting from it? I mean, I get how you would say that if the TV were collectively purchased. However, if you and only you purchased it, then allowing other people a voice vote over it is an act of voluntarism, which fits neatly under anarcho-captialism.

Instead of letting everyone play an equal part in where the TV goes, you'd rather have one person absolutely control it. This is hierarchical and authoritarian.

Life is hierarchical, so that's not really a bad thing. Some people are stronger than others because their bodies can hold a higher amount of muscle mass. Some people are faster than others. Some people are better with computers than others. These are all natural hierarchies that people fall into but that nobody ever complains about. I don't suppose that you advocate everyone running the same speed always or having the same muscle mass in the name of equality do you? Of course not because that would be stupid.

The part about my personal preference simply isn't true by the way. I'd prefer people do whatever they feel like doing at all times, so long as they aren't hurting anyone. If some people want to voluntarily set up their TV rights that way, fine. However, to say that you have some intrinsic right to the fruits of my labor (my TV) is FAR more authoritarian than allowing each person ownership claims over the property they labored for. What you're essentially saying is that the "greater good" of everyone else comes before the "greater good" of the individual. I fail to see how that's NOT authoritarian and hierarchical in every way, shape, and form. So while you point your finger at me and talk about authoritarianism, you should really be looking in the mirror.

You're viewing democracy as this omnipresent entity akin to the state that has power over a random area of land, and thus everyone must obey it even if they don't come in to contact with what it's being applied to.

What's the point of democracy if those who are a part of the system don't have to obey it? Where did I say the state was omnipresent and that everyone MUST obey it? You can resist but there is a price if you're caught doing so. What's the price for resisting the moral whims of an Autonomist society?

In fact, a rejection of democracy in these very situations is the opposite of liberty.

Only if the TV were purchased collectively. Liberty does not extend to your right to force yourself onto other people or their property EVER.

In fact, you participate in ludic democracy every single day of your life. I know you do. We all do. Every time you're in a group setting, working with people, you participate in a "democracy" as long as one person does not boss the others around, and all decisions are made with equal bargaining power. The rejection of democracy in the group setting is essentially hierarchy: or one person making decisions over everyone else.

I'm the boss so that pretty much kills that. I get my orders from my boss and I pass them on. There's nothing democratic about it. I don't experience democracy in my life either because I take control of everything I can control instead of waiting around for the opinions of everyone else to act. In fact, I don't really boss anyone around despite having the power to do so. I ask people to do something and if they do it, great! If not, then I do it because one way or another it needs to get done, and I just tell them I think it's shitty of them to shirk their work off on me. Usually that's enough to keep someone in line. If not and they continue being unproductive then I would fire them due to being unproductive, not because they didn't follow my every command.

Rejection of democracy is only the rejection of democracy. It does not intrinsically connote hierarchy because there are other systems besides hierarchy and democracy, such as voluntarism. Nobody is forcing you to do anything and you choose to do whatever it is that needs to get done.

I fail to see how anarchist democracy wouldn't just devolve into a state democracy eventually due to its inability to eschew the use of force as a means to an end.

You basically just spewed bullshit without giving any indication as to why or how this would happen. Also, Anarchist communes have existed in the past.

You don't see the obvious failure of your logic here? If it's "just a fact of opposing interests" then shouldn't the winning side be able to kill the losing side just because it's a majority vote? Democracy shows how unrealistic and unsustainable it is when really pushed to its limits. There's a reason not just an-caps and libertarians call democracy "the tyranny of the majority" and it's because it makes all rights relative to the will of the majority. Regardless of whether there's a state or not, this is a systemic flaw of democracy itself that not even removing the state can overcome.

You didn't even address the point. How do decisions get made between various people with regards to collective property if democracy isn't the way to go? I want you to answer this. That's what democracy is: the solution to hierarchy.

Some people are stronger than others because their bodies can hold a higher amount of muscle mass.

WOW. There is a difference between hierarchy in an institution (capitalism/the state) and differences in biology. Don't conflate the two, because they're not related at all.

Would you say that that's equal given that the TV is a representation of solely your labor and purchased entirely as a result of compensation resulting from it? I mean, I get how you would say that if the TV were collectively purchased. However, if you and only you purchased it, then allowing other people a voice vote over it is an act of voluntarism, which fits neatly under anarcho-captialism.

I don't believe that "ownership" should be based on concrete property rights. Instead, it should be based on use and effect.

I'd prefer people do whatever they feel like doing at all times, so long as they aren't hurting anyone.

Agreed. Did I say something to the contrary?

If some people want to voluntarily set up their TV rights that way, fine.

Yes, agreed.

However, to say that you have some intrinsic right to the fruits of my labor (my TV) is FAR more authoritarian than allowing each person ownership claims over the property they labored for.

What makes it yours? Your view of property is so archaic. You believe in the old "one time mix of labor means property until death separates us." I believe in a much more legitimate claim to property: occupancy/use and consensus decision-making.

What you're essentially saying is that the "greater good" of everyone else comes before the "greater good" of the individual.

I did not say that. I said that decisions shouldn't be enforced on people by a hierarchy. To solve this: democracy.

What's the point of democracy if those who are a part of the system don't have to obey it?

You misunderstood me, yet again. I never said you didn't have to "obey it." If 3 people want to move their TV into the living room and not in the kitchen and the 1 other person wants to keep it in the kitchen, guess where it's gonna go? It's going to go in the living room.

Only if the TV were purchased collectively. Liberty does not extend to your right to force yourself onto other people or their property EVER.

Ah, you're one of those "property = liberty types." Not surprised. Authoritarian if i've ever seen it. Anarchism was founded on an opposition to "property rights." You're basically a classical liberal.

I'm the boss so that pretty much kills that.

Yikes, more authority, more hierarchy.

I get my orders from my boss and I pass them on

There's absolutely nothing "libertarian" about any of this so far.

There's nothing democratic about it.

So hierarchy?

I love how you defend hierarchy and then say democracy is bad. That's so sad.

I don't experience democracy in my life either because I take control of everything I can control instead of waiting around for the opinions of everyone else to act.

That's a false dichotomy. What I mean by ludic democracy is anything like working in a group. Just take any type of social interaction. This is effectively a concensus democracy whenever you work with people: school projects, work projects, etc... If you don't interact with people, good for you! Then democracy doesn't apply to you, or, one could say, that you're a democracy of one! Why would you need to wait for the opinions of others when doing things on your own when this isn't in the context of a social environment? It seems that you're just misunderstanding what I'm actually articulating based on this very response. I applaud your individualism. I, too, like to do things on my own. But when I work with other people, I absolutely respect their individualism.

Rejection of democracy is only the rejection of democracy. It does not intrinsically connote hierarchy because there are other systems besides hierarchy and democracy, such as voluntarism. Nobody is forcing you to do anything and you choose to do whatever it is that needs to get done.

Anarchism implies voluntary interaction. Don't even bring up your "my system is voluntary" nonsense. Democracy is something applied when social products come into play. Saying "you can avoid it" is such a misunderstanding of this entire argument and a blatant cop out.

Basically, when decisions have to be made, do you use hierarchy or do you use democracy when given conflicting interests? The answer should be democracy.

TL;DR: To make myself completely clear: Democracy is the solution to hierarchy when decisions are made among a group of people that effect said people. Democracy is not some entity, it is a tool that replaces hierarchy in collective decision making. Essentially, democracy should replace hierarchy wherever hierarchy exists, except the state will dissolve completely as it's territorial claim is arbitrary.

I live in a state capitalist society that somewhat honors property rights. Companies run entirely on a democratic model aren't exactly common. I also don't have a problem with operating within a voluntary hierarchy if I feel it's going to benefit me in some way. Should I not be able to voluntarily comply to hierarchy if that's what I want?

There's absolutely nothing "libertarian" about any of this so far.

Actually, it's perfectly libertarian. I voluntarily chose my job when I could have chosen to work for a union instead or sell drugs all day or whatever other thing I could have thought to do with my life. The people under me are never forced to do anything they really don't want to do. Nobody is ever harmed. Nothing is ever stolen. I don't lie to my people either. Perhaps the only un-libertarian thing about my job is that the establishment I work for receives government money for providing their services, which means the contract payments are probably derived in some part from government money, which means my paycheck is derived in some part by government money. So I'm technically arguing against my own job by advocating libertarianism. I'd happily prefer to not have this job and have a free society though.

So hierarchy?

Of a voluntary nature, yes. My individual will is in harmony with the idea of working for someone for a paycheck. Why should I be denied this right?

I love how you defend hierarchy and then say democracy is bad. That's so sad.

Voluntary democracy is fine, I guess. I'm still not a fan but if that's what you're into then more power to you. I only defend hierarchies when they're completely voluntary.

That's a false dichotomy. What I mean by ludic democracy is anything like working in a group. Just take any type of social interaction. This is effectively a concensus democracy whenever you work with people: school projects, work projects, etc... If you don't interact with people, good for you! Then democracy doesn't apply to you, or, one could say, that you're a democracy of one!

I'm an individualist. I did 99% of all my projects going through school by myself even from a very young age, wrote every single paper myself, and I live in a hierarchy, as you so poignantly expressed. It's not that I avoid people so much as it's that I don't allow the decisions other people make to influence my life unless I voluntarily want them to for some reason. I go WAY out of my way to avoid democracy because I think even on a voluntary basis, while it's something that people MAY do, it's still not that great of a system. If I could live my life without ever having to experience democracy or authoritarianism again, as subject or participant, I would die a very happy man. Hierarchy itself only bothers me insofar as people are forced to participate in it.

Why would you need to wait for the opinions of others when doing things on your own when this isn't in the context of a social environment?

I was just saying I specifically avoid situations where a social environment might have any real decision making power in my life unless I want it to. I don't avoid having a girlfriend, for example, and I would respect her decisions up until they broke my moral code, at which point, I would resist.

I applaud your individualism. I, too, like to do things on my own. But when I work with other people, I absolutely respect their individualism.

I do too! They chose to come work for the company under my guidance, for example, and I've never forced anybody to do anything they didn't want to do. The least I could do is the job expected of me by those individuals.

Anarchism implies voluntary interaction. Don't even bring up your "my system is voluntary" nonsense. Democracy is something applied when social products come into play. Saying "you can avoid it" is such a misunderstanding of this entire argument and a blatant cop out.

I get it better than you think I do but I don't buy it because it's bad logic. If anarchism is "no hierarchy" built on voluntary interactions, then what happens to someone voluntarily joins a hierarchy? Suddenly the "no hierarchy" law goes right out the window, which shows how absolutely illogical this whole notion is. If you want to be as close to the truth as possible in your description, your system must encompass the entire spectrum of human will. The only system I'm aware of that achieves this is anarcho-captialism by simply maximizing individual choice.

Basically, when decisions have to be made, do you use hierarchy or do you use democracy when given conflicting interests? The answer should be democracy.

That depends on the situation. I try to avoid situations that may devolve into a democracy personally. You'd be surprised how often I use my power within the hierarchy to just flip a coin and decide things that way. That's not democracy though. If the conflict of interest was big enough (say, I was being voted off my TV every day when I got home from work) I would simply stop interacting with that person (unplug TV and take it into room or put a big fucking metal box around it that only I have the key to).

TL;DR: To make myself completely clear: Democracy is the solution to hierarchy when decisions are made among a group of people that effect said people. Democracy is not some entity, it is a tool that replaces hierarchy in collective decision making. Essentially, democracy should replace hierarchy wherever hierarchy exists, except the state will dissolve completely as it's territorial claim is arbitrary.

Democracy has two entities within it. Winning voters and losing voters. It's not democracy itself that is the entity, it's the collection of individuals labeled "winning voters" that are the entity in question. Democracy itself is just a fiction. The reality of the people who participate in it are what actually make it a terrible system. I don't believe in any sort of forced hierarchy whatsoever but I do believe that people should be free to participate in them voluntarily, so long as it's not one that's actively harming someone else. My personal view is that the principles that hold society together shouldn't ever change, and that they should be kept so simple that they never need to be changed so there would be no point in voting unless that's what you voluntarily want to participate in on some interpersonal level. Nobody should be forced under any circumstances to participate in either the process or the results. If you agree with that principle, then you're an anarcho-capitalist and you don't even know it.

Should I not be able to voluntarily comply to hierarchy if that's what I want?

Sure! You can do this in a socialist economy.

I voluntarily chose my job when I could have chosen to work for a union instead or sell drugs all day or whatever other thing I could have thought to do with my life.

It's only voluntary after you've submitted to the current state of affairs of property rights. Why should I be ruled be your property rights, and the status quo outside of me? I have no respect for your property rights or anyone else's, as I view the world as "my property." I will not be ruled by what you call "your property."

I'm an individualist

You're what I would call an "atomized individualist." Instead of wanting to empower the individual, you want man to isolate and stratify him with regards to property. Proper individualism respects the individual, without the expense of other individuals' liberty.

I do too! They chose to come work for the company under my guidance

Well, I don't view the wages system as "voluntary." Working is practically a fact of life. If you're in a shitty situation, you're gonna do all you can do get out of it. The point is to make sure you don't get in the shitty situation to begin with.

If anarchism is "no hierarchy" built on voluntary interactions, then what happens to someone voluntarily joins a hierarchy?

You're conflating institutional hierarchy with "voluntary hierarchy," which I wouldn't even call a hierarchy. The former is based on actual institutions like economic and political means of organization, while the other is based on social preferences. By all means, the latter is perfectly acceptable.

That depends on the situation. I try to avoid situations that may devolve into a democracy personally.

Good for you! That doesn't address my point.

If the conflict of interest was big enough (say, I was being voted off my TV every day when I got home from work) I would simply stop interacting with that person (unplug TV and take it into room or put a big fucking metal box around it that only I have the key to).

That's not how it works... lol. Just think of any communal living. Nobody gets "voted off of watching tv." If there's a big game on and everyone wants to watch the TV and you're hogging it, sure, they should be able to watch it over you given it's the communal TV.

I was just saying I specifically avoid situations where a social environment might have any real decision making power in my life unless I want it to. I don't avoid having a girlfriend, for example, and I would respect her decisions up until they broke my moral code, at which point, I would resist.

Don't know what that has to do with democracy.

Democracy has two entities within it. Winning voters and losing voters. It's not democracy itself that is the entity, it's the collection of individuals labeled "winning voters" that are the entity in question.

Actually, democracy doesn't have to have losers. See: consensus.

I don't believe in any sort of forced hierarchy whatsoever but I do believe that people should be free to participate in them voluntarily, so long as it's not one that's actively harming someone else. My personal view is that the principles that hold society together shouldn't ever change, and that they should be kept so simple that they never need to be changed so there would be no point in voting unless that's what you voluntarily want to participate in on some interpersonal level. Nobody should be forced under any circumstances to participate in either the process or the results. If you agree with that principle, then you're an anarcho-capitalist and you don't even know it.

Social interaction is a fact of life. Ludic democracy is a fact of life. This is the fucking problem we're having. You view democracy as an institution; I view it as a tool. We're not even talking about the same thing. To me, things like talking to your friends and deciding what movie to watch is a full functioning of democracy. If you have no friends, then okay. But to say this type of interaction with people is authoritarian is just stupid.

It's only voluntary after you've submitted to the current state of affairs of property rights.

The only concern is the initial purchase of land but I would think that if government collapsed and you went to land that was owned publicly before that (military base, public housing tracts, publicly owned parks) nobody would have the right to stop you from just squatting and taking it over. Once the land is settled, you are free to wall yourself off and create your own little society that never has contact with the outside and enforces property rights however it wants as long as being a part of such a community is consensual. What it cannot do is go outside those walls and force its view of property rights onto anyone else. I would also argue that people outside the walls would have moral duty to storm your compound if you were actively harming people inside and that, without a state, there would be no-one to stop them.

You're what I would call an "atomized individualist." Instead of wanting to empower the individual, you want man to isolate and stratify him with regards to property. Proper individualism respects the individual, without the expense of other individuals' liberty.

Their liberty is entirely intact as I NEVER force or coerce anyone into doing anything. They can always refuse and I'll just do it and make them feel bad later for sticking me with the job. If they care, then they'll shape up. If not, then they have to face the consequences of their decisions. One decision being sticking around to work for me, another being chronically refusing to comply with what I asked you to do and choosing instead to have a rate of productivity that doesn't even come close to justifying their wage. The consequence is most likely going to result in that person needing to find a new job or whatever they would do after that. Consequences are an inevitable part of the decision-making process.

Well, I don't view the wages system as "voluntary." Working is practically a fact of life. If you're in a shitty situation, you're gonna do all you can do get out of it. The point is to make sure you don't get in the shitty situation to begin with.

Wages are merely one of many forms of compensation. If you don't like a wage, you are free to arrange whatever system with your employer/employee(s) that you choose. To imply that wage labor is all there is in anarcho-capitalism is a complete and utter straw man. Labor contracts would most likely be incredibly varied. Perhaps some people would labor to have the company they work for cover all of their living expenses and provide a weekly stipend. Perhaps some will be paid based on how much work they do. Perhaps some will stick to wage labor. Perhaps some will own their own business and forgo working for anyone at all. These are all valid options in anarcho-capitalism. If you are that anal about institutional hierarchy then simply start your own business that adheres to the principles that you adhere to and do that. Surely if your method is so much better for society then it will easily bury us silly anarcho-capitalists and our subjective value theory. In fact, I would LOVE for that to happen because, trust me when I say, I would love nothing more than for all my needs to be provided by the system and not have to work if I chose not to. I just am not foolish enough to think that is economically feasible, which makes the entire thing a moot point.

That's not how it works... lol. Just think of any communal living. Nobody gets "voted off of watching tv." If there's a big game on and everyone wants to watch the TV and you're hogging it, sure, they should be able to watch it over you given it's the communal TV.

If I owned the TV outright, paid for it exclusively in my own labor and I'm playing PS3 and my roommates come into the house and we all voted and they voted to watch the game and tried to force me to turn it off, I would be fucking FURIOUS! That is rude as hell and an exercise of democratic authoritarian control over this item that is clearly a representation of my labor. If I simply laugh in their faces then they can either not do anything and I'll keep playing videogames until I'm done, or they can try and change the channel anyways.

Actually, democracy doesn't have to have losers. See: consensus.

If everybody generally agrees then there can't possibly be anything to vote about in the first place. People will just move together naturally without resisting each other. That's a result of freedom of association though, not an effect of democracy. I fully support consensus decision-making but consensus needs to mean EVERYONE if we're talking about society as a whole and that simply isn't going to ever happen. General consensus is not enough to structure anything but voluntary enclaves around.

Social interaction is a fact of life. Ludic democracy is a fact of life.

Social interaction is a fact of modern life, sure. It does not necessarily follow that democracy is also a fact of life. Democracy is a complete and utter fabrication of human imagination in all its forms so it cannot possibly be a fact of anything.

You view democracy as an institution; I view it as a tool.

I view it as a tool too. A tool that is FAR more often than not used by the institution of the majority (or the illusion thereof) to impose its will on the minority all throughout history with incredibly disastrous results. That's what I've been saying this whole time.

All systems of compensation are anti- to liberty. Employment is a slavery, within itself.

If I owned the TV outright, paid for it exclusively in my own labor and I'm playing PS3 and my roommates come into the house and we all voted and they voted to watch the game and tried to force me to turn it off, I would be fucking FURIOUS!

I'm pretty sure that I've articulated the entire time that this TV was collectively owned. For instance, it was left home from the previous users. Now it is there's.

If everybody generally agrees then there can't possibly be anything to vote about in the first place.

The fact that you'e talking about voting right now makes me feel like you're not listening to me. Every situation I've given you didn't require a "vote." It's basically just ludic interaction among people collectively deciding what to do.

It does not necessarily follow that democracy is also a fact of life.

In the sense that I'm referring to it, it does. You interacting with your project mates at work and working in the same room with them peacefully and sharing the same copier, for instance, is an example of a ludic democracy.

A tool that is FAR more often than not used by the institution of the majority (or the illusion thereof) to impose its will on the minority all throughout history with incredibly disastrous results.

Stop with this "impose" bullshit. Do you not understand the context in which democracy is used? If 999 people in a community want the local swing set to be placed in Park A and 1 person wants it to remain in park B, is the first group going to allow for a dictatorship of the minority? Why the fuck would they want to keep it at Park B just because one guy is throwing a fit about it?

The issue at hand is not "What you want to do." It's "what you're going to do about what you want to do." You can think whatever you want to think or respect or not respect whatever, that's your right.

I'm pretty sure that I've articulated the entire time that this TV was collectively owned. For instance, it was left home from the previous users. Now it is there's.

You are a case study in why collectivist anarchism as well as democracy fail and I'm about to tell you why:

In this conversation, you've move goalposts multiple times over whether or not you think I should be allowed ownership of my own TV exclusively ever without anyone else having any other rights to it at all, even if I paid for it entirely myself. First, you seemed fine with it. Next, you challenged my occupancy and use of it. Finally, it ended up focusing on collective decision making solely, totally ignoring the fact that in my system you avoid collective decision making altogether in all aspects of life if you wanted or you could choose to have every decision made by a majority or other arbitrary group.

You simply couldn't help but push the envelope could you? This is exactly the type of subconscious compulsive backslide that draws what has been traditionally viewed as anarchism ultimately into statehood and oppression. On top of all the objective value and price theories it's a goddamned disaster waiting to happen.

The fact that you'e talking about voting right now makes me feel like you're not listening to me. Every situation I've given you didn't require a "vote." It's basically just ludic interaction among people collectively deciding what to do.

In this situation, you vote by going along. If my friends are all going to see some stupid movie like Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter, I'm going to cast a vote for "No, I'm not doing that." Unfortunately, this is not even close to ever being a realistic way to organize an entire society because people have differing views on things like property rights and religion. So either everyone has to share your view, or you're going to have to force your view onto some people unless you just allow everybody to do whatever they want, in which case you should be advocating for anarcho-capitalism.

In the sense that I'm referring to it, it does. You interacting with your project mates at work and working in the same room with them peacefully and sharing the same copier, for instance, is an example of a ludic democracy.

Oh, really? I thought it was an example of hierarchy because either the company you work for owns the printer and can take it away or restrict it at any time. Either that or the company who manufactured it owns it and leases it to you according to their terms and they are also free to remove or restrict it at any time.

If 999 people in a community want the local swing set to be placed in Park A and 1 person wants it to remain in park B, is the first group going to allow for a dictatorship of the minority?

No. 999 people should pool their resources and create "999 man park" out of park A and the 1 guy should be free to buy a plot of land, buy some swingsets and whatnot, put his name on it and either charge if it's really awesome like Six Flags or something or (as is pretty common today) just let kids play there for free at a loss at park B for the sake of providing happiness to children.

With your system, park A is "999 man park" and so is park B. So will every park be after that even if those 999 men couldn't have possibly come up with a park as awesome as the one marginalized person who happens to be an expert at building parks.

The issue at hand is not "What you want to do." It's "what you're going to do about what you want to do." You can think whatever you want to think or respect or not respect whatever, that's your right.

And all of the earth is my right, yes.

In this conversation, you've move goalposts multiple times over whether or not you think I should be allowed ownership of my own TV exclusively ever without anyone else having any other rights to it at all, even if I paid for it entirely myself. First, you seemed fine with it. Next, you challenged my occupancy and use of it. Finally, it ended up focusing on collective decision making solely, totally ignoring the fact that in my system you avoid collective decision making altogether in all aspects of life if you wanted or you could choose to have every decision made by a majority or other arbitrary group.

Dude, how do you think a family unit operates a TV. They share a living room and ludicly operate around the TV in a democratic manner about it.

This is exactly the type of subconscious compulsive backslide that draws what has been traditionally viewed as anarchism ultimately into statehood and oppression.

Aaaaaand now you're just making things up.

If my friends are all going to see some stupid movie like Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter, I'm going to cast a vote for "No, I'm not doing that."

Then don't go!!!! I said you don't have to go! If 10 of your friends want to go see it and you're the only one who doesn't, they're probably gonna go anyway... Your "no" doesn't really change anything. In fact, them staying directly because of you would be a rule by the minority if a consensus couldn't be met.

So either everyone has to share your view, or you're going to have to force your view onto some people unless you just allow everybody to do whatever they want, in which case you should be advocating for anarcho-capitalism.

I'm not talking about "force." Jesus, stop pretending like what I'm describing is force, it's so intellectually dishonest.

Oh, really? I thought it was an example of hierarchy because either the company you work for owns the printer and can take it away or restrict it at any time

What??? That didn't even respond to my point at all, lmao. You basically just changed the question to suit your needs. Sure, the company may own the printer, but that doesn't change the way they organize around it's use. Bringing up the fact that the company owns it completely misses the fucking point. I can't believe you're having this hard a time understanding this.

No. 999 people should pool their resources and create "999 man park" out of park A and the 1 guy should be free to buy a plot of land, buy some swingsets and whatnot, put his name on it and either charge if it's really awesome like Six Flags or something or (as is pretty common today) just let kids play there for free at a loss at park B for the sake of providing happiness to children.

Way to effectively avoid any coherent response. Yet again, why would the 999 people be dictated by the 1 person just because he doesn't want it changed? It's not just his. It's a community swing set...

If he wants to go make his own swing set, sure! He can get some help from his friends and whatnot and they can all build a park!

With your system, park A is "999 man park" and so is park B. So will every park be after that even if those 999 men couldn't have possibly come up with a park as awesome as the one marginalized person who happens to be an expert at building parks.

You basically just spewed bullshit without giving any indication as to why or how this would happen. Also, Anarchist communes have existed in the past.

It's the nature of democracy. The majority wins, they use their victory to force the minority to follow a system that they may not agree with. Thus begins a crusade by the minority to educate just enough of the previous voters and sway them back they're way and, in attaining victory, they use their new-found powers for retribution. Power goes back and forth and the average person in the middle is stuck with no voice unless it's the voice of the victor. This power struggle is what ultimately will destroy all pure democracies and it's a perfect example of why they typically don't last very long compared to, say, an empire.

An anarchist commune and an anarchist society would be too different things. If you advocate voluntary anarchist communes then, again, you fit perfectly within the anarcho-capitalism paradigm.

Nah, we're anarchists. In fact, we're technically more anarchist than you when you get right down to it. We don't control money via any system because we believe in subjective value, and we don't control people via any system because we see that as perpetually immoral. Could you honestly say the same about communism? You use democracy (a system that forces the minority to comply to the will of the majority) to make collective decisions about anything under the sun and advocate abolishing money in favor of extreme central economic planning.

You didn't even address the point. How do decisions get made between various people with regards to collective property if democracy isn't the way to go? I want you to answer this.

I did answer it you just don't like the answer. There's no one system that people should adhere to. Some people won't mind a TV dictator (say a husband who barely ever watches TV only with his wife and she chooses what they watch), some people won't mind democracy, some people won't mind flipping a coin, some people will fight over it voluntarily, some people will play rock, paper, scissors. There are a whole universe of collective decision-making tools that you're not considering here. This absolutist approach to democracy as the solution to everything simply ignores the reality of the subjective nature of individual choice. People should figure this out however they choose. I would never presume that a certain group of people will always default to democracy but that is certainly one way of handling something simple and voluntary like television privileges.

Okay now that I answered yours more succinctly than before, you get to answer mine: Should the majority be able to vote to murder the minority? If not, what principle is it that keeps them from being able to do so?

There is a difference between hierarchy in an institution (capitalism/the state) and differences in biology. Don't conflate the two, because they're not related at all.

So it's unreasonable to assume that a very smart person would labor more effectively than a very stupid person? A strong person would be able to lift more than a weak person? I mean, if you can't accept the basic fact that human beings are born unequal and their skills and contributions to the market will always be unequal no matter what, then I'm sorry but you're ignoring a very basic fact of humanity. Not all humans are the same, so why should we have a society organized around a demonstrably false principle (labor equality) that was founded on bad economics?

I don't believe that "ownership" should be based on concrete property rights. Instead, it should be based on use and effect.

Cool, well, unfortunately for you, the reason why your system will never flourish and will always fail is that other people do believe in ownership and concrete property rights, such as myself. You see, you could adhere to that rule voluntarily in my society whereas I could not in yours. Which system is more free at the individual level again?

What makes it yours? Your view of property is so archaic. You believe in the old "one time mix of labor means property until death separates us."

The fact that it's a representation of MY labor and not anyone else's. It's not a mix of labor when you purchase something outright, it's an exchange of your labor in the form of money, for the labor of the people who built the TV in the form of a TV. You wanted their TV more than you wanted your money and they wanted your money more than they wanted the TV. Nothing more, nothing less. All parties are satisfied without any force required.

I believe in a much more legitimate claim to property: occupancy/use and consensus decision-making.

I'd like you to know how you quantify legitimacy without interjecting opinion in order to come up with the claim that your view is somehow objectively "much more legitimate."

I did not say that. I said that decisions shouldn't be enforced on people by a hierarchy. To solve this: democracy.

Democracy is hierarchical, as I've already demonstrated. The majority enforces its will on the minority. Until you're willing to acknowledge that fact this conversation isn't going to go anywhere. When you can answer WHY democracy isn't a heirarchy but ownership of private property is, that's what I'll respond to. Short of that I'm pretty much done here. You're too high on yourself to have a real conversation with. It's all just "You're so archaic and I'm much more legitimate" and you're bringing me down to your level, which I try vehemently to avoid but sometimes am baited into doing anyways.

Ah, you're one of those "property = liberty types." Not surprised. Authoritarian if i've ever seen it. Anarchism was founded on an opposition to "property rights." You're basically a classical liberal.

Straw man. Liberty and property are not the same. They're natural elements of what make a free human being and they are distinct from each other. Property originating in self-ownership, and liberty originating from within your decision making faculties. They're as separate as body and mind.

Since i'm basically certain that you don't understand what I mean by "democracy", please explain to me this:

If a group of friends get together and decide what movie to watch, is this authoritarian?

That type of situation is exactly what I mean by "democracy." A group of people come together and decide on a decision that effects all of them. If they don't like the call, they can arrive at a consensus on a different movie; if one's having a horrible time, he/she can go home. Now, since "democracy is tyranny!", please explain to me why this type of relation is authoritarian.

The problem in this whole argument is that you're viewing democracy as an institution, whereas I'm arguing for it as a tool. I've told you multiple times that Anarchist democracy isn't some coercive force that people have to partake in, it's a tool people use to make collective decisions.

I'm going to just repeat this over and over again every reply until you answer it:

Should a bunch of friends be able to get together and decide to vote on whether or not one of them will be murdered by the others? If not, what particular power is it that protects the individual from the will of the majority?

If not, what particular power is it that protects the individual from the will of the majority?

Are you disillusioned or something? Anyone could do this in any type of economic system. Don't conflate the ability to murder with voluntary agreements. Anybody can dominate anybody in any society if they want.

Should a bunch of friends be able to get together and decide to vote on whether or not one of them will be murdered by the others?

The fact that that's your response is truly sad. You must be a hermit. You're basically arguing that people shouldn't interact at this point. You didn't answer my question, instead, you respond with some abstract reactionary retort that fails to coherently respond to my question.

So you're not going to answer the question? I see. Instead you're just going to hurl insults because you know damn well what the answer to that question is, if you're being logically consistent. You simply don't want to admit it and, that's fine but this is where the conversation ends and I accept your unconditional surrender.

Anyone could do this in any type of economic system. Don't conflate the ability to murder with voluntary agreements. Anybody can dominate anybody in any society if they want.

ANYBODY could dominate ANYBODY in ANY society? That's more than a little far fetched. I couldn't dominate the entire military by myself in this society. I would need a very large group in order to be able to not die pretty much immediately in the most one-sided fight in all of history. However, if, as you posit, all group decision making is an exercise of democracy, how can organized collective murder (such as war between two nationalist democracies) ever possibly be anything BUT democratic?

So you're not going to answer the question? I see. Instead you're just going to hurl insults because you know damn well what the answer to that question is, if you're being logically consistent.

I did answer your question. The answer is nothing: in any society the strongest people can win. That's not a fault of any given economic system, it's a fault of biology.

You simply don't want to admit it and, that's fine but this is where the conversation ends and I accept your unconditional surrender.

Wow, how blind you are.

ANYBODY could dominate ANYBODY in ANY society? That's more than a little far fetched.

Are you being serious right now. You just asked what in a communist society would keep people form dominating other people, like it's any different than in a capitalist society. The fact that people interact would be the answer to your question, not any given economic system. THINK.

I would need a very large group in order to be able to not die pretty much immediately in the most one-sided fight in all of history.